As most lenders and servicers are aware, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is revising and implementing new regulations relating to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and has proposed to amend Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. § 1006, which deals with time-barred debt and disclosures relating to the revival of time-barred debt (Proposed Rule). On March 3, 2020, the CFPB published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking extending the comment period for the Proposed Rule until June 5, 2020. The summary below is an overview of the Proposed Rule, and a comparison with the regulations issued by New York State Department of Financial Services (NY Regulations).
The FDCPA currently prohibits a debt collector from "us[ing] any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt,"[1] and from misstating the "legal status" of a debt, which likely includes whether a debt would be considered time barred. The Proposed Rule clarifies these prohibitions and requires debt collectors to make certain disclosures when collecting time-barred debts, as follows:
The FDCPA currently permits states to issue consumer protection laws affording greater protection than that provided by § 1692n of the FDCPA. The NY Regulations on time-barred debt are similar to the Proposed Rule and afford greater consumer protections than the FDCPA does in its current state. Under the NY Regulations, a debt collector is required to maintain reasonable procedures for determining whether the statute of limitations applicable to the debt being collected has expired.[4]
In New York, if a debt collector knows or has reason to know the debt is time barred, the debt collector must provide the consumer with a "clear and conspicuous notice, in the same medium (such as via telephone or electronic communication) by which the debt collector will accept payment" stating:
As noted above, the CFPB has proposed the same standard as New York be used such that certain prohibitions and disclosures are triggered when a debt collector "know[s] or should have known" the statute of limitations to enforce a debt has expired. Recognizing that this standard may be difficult to ascertain, the CFPB has requested comments on the Small Business Review Panel's strict liability standard as well. Under the strict liability standard, the debt collector would be liable under the FDCPA for suing or threatening to sue a consumer on a time-barred debt even if it neither knew nor should have known the debt was time barred.
Significantly, the Proposed Rule also provides for a similar, although simpler, disclosure than that required by the NY Regulations. The NY Regulations require a debt collector who knows or has reason to know the statute of limitations may be expired to provide the consumer with the requisite disclosure, in the same medium by which the debt collector will accept payment, "such as via telephone or electronic communication,"[6] before accepting payment on such a debt. Unlike the NY Regulations, the Proposed Rule does not state whether it requires the disclosure to be provided in the same medium.
The CFPB has developed a series of model forms (the Proposed Forms) (85 FR 12672-01) with disclosure language appropriate for different circumstances under the Proposed Rule. Model Form B-4 provides for language that may be included in a standard debt validation notice under the FDCPA:
The Proposed Forms also provide additional form language for disclosures where a time-barred debt may be revived under applicable law (as provided below).
Proposed Model Forms B-5 through B-7 provide for tailored disclosures where the time-barred debt may be revived. The forms provide:
The CFPB has proposed an effective date of the final rule to be one year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. As previously stated, comments may still be submitted until June 5, 2020 on the Proposed Rule, the proposed standards and the proposed effective date of the final rule. Debt collectors should consider submitting comments to the CFPB on the Proposed Rule, particularly in light of the CFPB's consideration of using a strict liability standard, as noted above. Such a standard may leave debt collectors without the ability to argue they did not "know or should have known" that the statute of limitations had actually expired because they have arguments against the expiration that the courts (including the highest state appellate courts) may find viable. This could leave debt collectors in a defenseless situation with the enforcement agencies as well as in lawsuits filed by borrowers under the FDCPA.
[1] 15 U.S.C. § 1692e,(2)(A).
[2] A Proposed Rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 85 Fed. Reg. 12672 (proposed May 21, 2019) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. § 1006.26(c)(1)(i)).
[3] A Proposed Rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 85 Fed. Reg. 12672 (proposed May 21, 2019) (to be codified at § 1006.26(c)(1)(ii)).
[4] 23 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1.3(a).
[5] 23 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1.3(b)-(c).
[6] 23 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1.3(b).
Day Pitney Press Release
Day Pitney Litigation Partners Christina Livorsi and Alfred Marks authored the article, "Questions Surround NY's Controversial New Foreclosure Law," for Law360.
Day Pitney Alert
Day Pitney Press Release
On November 4, Day Pitney Litigation Partner Christina Livorsi will be speaking at the Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey's Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Symposium on the "Ethics of Remote Lawyering."
Day Pitney Litigation Senior Associate Michael J. Fitzpatrick and Partner Mark Salah Morgan authored an article titled, "Assignment for the Benefit of the Creditors? One Creditor's Experience With an Archaic State Insolvency Process," for the New Jersey Law Journal.
Day Pitney Press Release
Day Pitney Florida Litigation Partner Mark Romance was featured on the American Bar Association's Legal Talk Network's Litigation Radio Podcast titled, "How to Handle the Unexpected in Court."
New Jersey Partner Christina Livorsi was featured in an in-depth New Jersey Law Journal Q&A titled, "Meet Day Pitney's Livorsi, the Woman Whose Big Courtroom Victory Continues to Reverberate Across 2 Sectors."
Copyright © 2023 Day Pitney LLP, all rights reserved.